>One in three people have become victims of a crime which

>>58133881
How is crime profitable in the UK? There are cameras everywhere. What are all the cameras used for if they don't use it to follow the criminals home?

>>58134277
They don't have resources for it.

Do you realize how busy police and courts would be?

>>58134346
They should just get some sort of automatic recognition to do it. Just choose the person to follow and let the computer do it and recognize from other cameras. The technology already exists

>>58134396
The technology would be deemed racist for disproportionately following blacks.

>>58133881
>Why do people work jobs then
Because while the chances of being caught for doing it once, the punishment is very very costly and you will probably be caught eventually if you do it enough to make a decent living off of.

>>58134407
You can just manually choose criminals to follow during the crime and let black people get away with it until yo have your quota of white criminals.

>>58134425
>Because while the chances of being caught for doing it once
are low*

>>58134425
But according to statistics it seems so tremendously unlikely.

If you look at any country, MILLIONS are fraudulently stolen a day.

And yet at most you'll find a handful of major fraud busts a year in the country.

It really seems like a crime that makes all other crime obsolete.

Why rob gas stations or banks when you can use malware to make many times more, with far lower chance of getting caught and IF CAUGHT serve a small fraction of the time?

Why do people even rob or sell drugs???

>>58134396
Because, HEY, guess what, there aren't cameras fucking everywhere.
Stop perpetuating that retarded meme.

Most of those cameras in that shit report were privately owned CCTV for stores and shit.
Good luck passing legislation to allow free use of any camera. Even Snoopers Charter gets off lightly next to that.

Most government cameras are in government property, high-crime areas and roads. That's it. Maybe a few in busy town centers here and there on main roads.

>>58134452
>Because, HEY, guess what, there aren't cameras fucking everywhere.
>Stop perpetuating that retarded meme.

I used to live in britain, there are cameras everywhere.

>>58134449
>Why do people even rob or sell drugs???
Most people are dumb. Also the people stealing ccs are generally from some shit country which won't care.

>>58134428
would just be deemed racist for intentionally ignore black people.

thank god for black people and sjws making fair surveillance impractical from a social point of view.

>>58134470
They do it in every country. It's common as fuck

>>58134473
>would just be deemed racist for intentionally ignore black people.

How is that racist if you ignore the crime they are doing?

>>58134487
in YOUR country maybe, it's highly uncommon here

>>58134508
What country?

Guarantee it's more common than you think. It's shocking really.

>>58134277
>thinks Every single square inch of the Uk has cameras and not just major cities.

>>58134452
Yea there are you fucking social justice faggot

>>58134785
No there isnt. Unless you live in a city you dont see cctv everywhere.

You tinfoil hat conspiracy theory spastics are hilarious.
You probably live in some shithole area

>>58133881
People give their logging info for free on facebook, no real crime

Since this thread is probably populated by brits

Does anybody know a single ISP that can give me 100/100 speeds or higher. I'm in fucking london and not a single one of the fibre companies are even doing anything near me

>>58134463
I DO LIVE IN BRITAIN.
I know of 5 council-owned cameras outside of main town-center streets, in places with high teen crime and stupid kid gangs and shit.
In town center, there's, pfft, like, maybe double at best. There's been a reduction in them since the 90s, actually.

Cities are only just barely higher in that regard, as >>58134908 said.
Most of them you can see from street level are store-owned CCTV. Literally right on their banners or above doors.